In current generation of gaming, multiplayer is a very common feature in video games regardless of genre, developer, or compatibility. It wasn't always like this, however. The rise of multiplayer, or rather the inclusion of multiplayer in single player oriented games, is a recent phenomenon.
Today, it is common for a game to include a multiplayer feature. Most notably incompatible, we see multiplayer in games focusing on crafting a compelling single player experience, such as within Action and Platforming genres. Examples of the odd presence of multiplayer can be found in games like Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, Bioshock 2, Fable 2 and 3, and Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots. A pattern with the above mentioned games is that all are sequels. Moreover, all of them started as a game with only a single player campaign.
The debate on multiplayer centers around whether or not multiplayer is necessary. On one hand, multiplayer in single player genres is an additional feature; and more is good. Furthermore, multiplayer lengthens and enhances the gaming experience. For some, gaming is a social experience that is always better with friends. Multiplayer can also lengthens a game's lifetime if the single player portion has been completed. An example of good multiplayer is evident in popular shooters, such as the popular Call of Duty franchise. On the other hand, gamers often shun the inclusion of multiplayer in single player oriented games as redundant. Many gamers are thus led to speculate that multiplayer features divert attention and resources from the core single player experience during the game's development. Therefore, multiplayer dilutes a game's quality; the game is poor but can be enjoyed for a longer period of time through online play. An example of this would be Assassin's Creed franchise, (although debatable if the first two are even good at all) when the third iteration, Brotherhood, included a multiplayer feature.
Indeed, there are examples of multiplayer done well in unexpected games. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves and Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots are clear example of well developed juxtaposition of multiplayer and single player. In addition, one particular game that I thoroughly enjoy, Demon's Souls, a Role Playing Game from FromSoftware, features an innovative and refreshing take on cooperative and competitive multiplayer. In my own experience, the multiplayer feature of Demon's Souls is what keeps me coming back. Even after two years of its release, I still find myself playing from time to time, creating new characters just to invade and harass noobs.
The rise of multiplayer should be seen as an obvious trajectory for the video game industry, in my opinion. Improvements in technology and network infrastructure in the last two decades has to be of use, and video game multiplayer is one way. Therefore, it's somewhat misleading to condemn or praise the rise of multiplayer as an industry trend. Rather, we should look at the pros and cons of this trend, and perhaps evaluate it in order to shape more positive multiplayer in the future.
The most significant benefit of multiplayer is the extension of a game's life. Single player, in all of its glory, is generally short, but powerful experience. Of course, there are games that encourage multiple (sometimes through branching paths) play throughs. Then there are some games that retain their magic through multiple play throughs. But generally, multiplayer provides value for the consumer above all else. Upon completing a game and mastering basic mechanics, a player can jump online for competitive play. If another industry trend is a shift towards more profit-oriented development model, and the rise of multiplayer should be seen as a savior for the consumer. Games today costs $60, a 20% increase from the previous generation where console software are priced at $50 (the exception is of course PC games). On top of that, Downloadable Contents nowadays comes more often and patches. What multiplayer is doing is just allowing the gamers to play among themselves in the playgrounds they created. It cultivates competition, thus incentive to play for the purpose of improvement.
Personally, I find the single player guilty of the same trend. There are games that are multiplayer in nature but included single player for the purpose of boasting a "full purchase." Most notably, my favorite FPS franchise Battlefield is guilty of this. It began with the original Bad Company, and looks like will continue with Battlefield 3 later this year. My own style is buying multiplayer games for multiplayer, whereas single player for single player exclusively. For example, I haven't beat the campaign for BFBC2, nor have I played Metal Gear Online that came with Metal Gear Solid 4. The "other" experience is not necessarily bad, just not necessary.
Overview
In current generation of gaming, multiplayer is a very common feature in video games regardless of genre, developer, or compatibility. It wasn't always like this, however. The rise of multiplayer, or rather the inclusion of multiplayer in single player oriented games, is a recent phenomenon.
Today, it is common for a game to include a multiplayer feature. Most notably incompatible, we see multiplayer in games focusing on crafting a compelling single player experience, such as within Action and Platforming genres. Examples of the odd presence of multiplayer can be found in games like Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, Bioshock 2, Fable 2 and 3, and Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots. A pattern with the above mentioned games is that all are sequels. Moreover, all of them started as a game with only a single player campaign.
The debate on multiplayer centers around whether or not multiplayer is necessary. On one hand, multiplayer in single player genres is an additional feature; and more is good. Furthermore, multiplayer lengthens and enhances the gaming experience. For some, gaming is a social experience that is always better with friends. Multiplayer can also lengthens a game's lifetime if the single player portion has been completed. An example of good multiplayer is evident in popular shooters, such as the popular Call of Duty franchise. On the other hand, gamers often shun the inclusion of multiplayer in single player oriented games as redundant. Many gamers are thus led to speculate that multiplayer features divert attention and resources from the core single player experience during the game's development. Therefore, multiplayer dilutes a game's quality; the game is poor but can be enjoyed for a longer period of time through online play. An example of this would be Assassin's Creed franchise, (although debatable if the first two are even good at all) when the third iteration, Brotherhood, included a multiplayer feature.
Indeed, there are examples of multiplayer done well in unexpected games. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves and Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots are clear example of well developed juxtaposition of multiplayer and single player. In addition, one particular game that I thoroughly enjoy, Demon's Souls, a Role Playing Game from FromSoftware, features an innovative and refreshing take on cooperative and competitive multiplayer. In my own experience, the multiplayer feature of Demon's Souls is what keeps me coming back. Even after two years of its release, I still find myself playing from time to time, creating new characters just to invade and harass noobs.
A ray of hope
Dark Souls to continue the carnage
History
(There is no text here yet.)
Opinion
The rise of multiplayer should be seen as an obvious trajectory for the video game industry, in my opinion. Improvements in technology and network infrastructure in the last two decades has to be of use, and video game multiplayer is one way. Therefore, it's somewhat misleading to condemn or praise the rise of multiplayer as an industry trend. Rather, we should look at the pros and cons of this trend, and perhaps evaluate it in order to shape more positive multiplayer in the future.
The most significant benefit of multiplayer is the extension of a game's life. Single player, in all of its glory, is generally short, but powerful experience. Of course, there are games that encourage multiple (sometimes through branching paths) play throughs. Then there are some games that retain their magic through multiple play throughs. But generally, multiplayer provides value for the consumer above all else. Upon completing a game and mastering basic mechanics, a player can jump online for competitive play. If another industry trend is a shift towards more profit-oriented development model, and the rise of multiplayer should be seen as a savior for the consumer. Games today costs $60, a 20% increase from the previous generation where console software are priced at $50 (the exception is of course PC games). On top of that, Downloadable Contents nowadays comes more often and patches. What multiplayer is doing is just allowing the gamers to play among themselves in the playgrounds they created. It cultivates competition, thus incentive to play for the purpose of improvement.
Personally, I find the single player guilty of the same trend. There are games that are multiplayer in nature but included single player for the purpose of boasting a "full purchase." Most notably, my favorite FPS franchise Battlefield is guilty of this. It began with the original Bad Company, and looks like will continue with Battlefield 3 later this year. My own style is buying multiplayer games for multiplayer, whereas single player for single player exclusively. For example, I haven't beat the campaign for BFBC2, nor have I played Metal Gear Online that came with Metal Gear Solid 4. The "other" experience is not necessarily bad, just not necessary.
Future Trends?
(There is no text here yet.)